The High Court at Kabale grants mandatory bail to an accused charged with murder, affirming that once an accused has spent over 180 days on remand before committal, they are entitled to mandatory bail

Waboga David
Sep 9
4 min read

Introduction.

The concept of mandatory bail in Uganda is premised on Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995, which provides that a person charged with an offence triable only by the High Court is entitled to be released on bail if they have been remanded in custody for more than 180 days before committal. Unlike ordinary bail, which is discretionary and dependent on judicial assessment of risk factors, mandatory bail arises as a constitutional entitlement once the statutory requirement is met.

The High Court’s ruling in Mivumbi Richard v Uganda (Criminal Misc. Application No. 029 of 2025, Kabale High Court) illustrates this principle in practice. The Applicant had been remanded for over 210 days before being committed for trial on a charge of murder, a capital offence. The Court reaffirmed that once the constitutional threshold of 180 days is exceeded, the accused person has a right to apply for bail, and the Court is obliged to grant it on reasonable conditions, guided by the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice Directions), 2022.

This case is significant because it highlights two competing interests:

The presumption of innocence and protection of personal liberty enshrined in Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution.
The public interest in prosecuting grave offences such as murder without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

By granting bail subject to strict conditions, the Court demonstrated that mandatory bail does not amount to unconditional release, but rather reflects a constitutional safeguard against prolonged pre-trial detention.

It further clarified that concerns such as the seriousness of the charge, potential witness interference, and community safety remain central to judicial discretion under the 2022 Constitutional Bail Guidelines.

Thus, Mivumbi Richard v Uganda reinforces the principle that mandatory bail is a constitutional right triggered by time spent on remand, but its exercise must be harmonized with broader considerations of justice, fairness, and public order.

Background

The Applicant, Mivumbi Richard, was one of three accused persons charged with murder under Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 128. The charges arose from the alleged killing of Hakizimana Jackson on 10 May 2023 in Kisoro District.

He was remanded to custody on 2 April 2024 by the Kisoro Chief Magistrate’s Court and subsequently committed to the High Court in November 2024. By the date of committal, the Applicant had been on remand for over 210 days.

On 7 July 2025, he applied for bail under Articles 23(6)(c) and 28(3)(a) of the Constitution, Section 15(1) of the Trial on Indictments Act, and Rule 10(1) of the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022.

Applicant’s Case

The Applicant advanced the following grounds:

The Applicant argued that their Constitutional right to bail under Articles 23(6)(c) and 28(3)(a).

That he had been on remand for more than 180 days before committal to the High Court.

He presented three substantial sureties:

-Musanase Juliet – businesswoman.

-Gloria Nyirangimana – businesswoman and District Woman Councillor.

-Munyabambazi Jackson – Lay Reader, Church of Uganda.

He had a fixed place of abode at Gahiza Cell, Buhozi Parish, Busanza Sub-County, Kisoro District.

The LC II of Buhozi Parish and the complainant (Nizeyimana Godfrey) both issued letters to the court supporting his release on bail.

The LC II letter confirmed he had no criminal record and was a permanent resident. The complainant even alleged that the crime was committed by another individual, Harerimana Alexander, who was already out of jail.

Respondent’s Opposition

The State, represented by Ms. Grace Nabaggala Ntege (Chief State Attorney), Ms. Noerine Naggayi, and Mr. Isaac Onyango, opposed the application.

They argued:

The offence of murder is grave and warrants strict consideration.

While acknowledging that the 180-day threshold had been exceeded, they contended that the application was “overtaken by events” since the Applicant had already been committed to the High Court for trial.

No affidavit in rejoinder was filed by the Applicant.

Court’s Analysis

Justice Ssemogerere addressed the following key issues

1. Constitutional Basis for Mandatory Bail

Article 23(6)(c) provides that:

“Where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence, in the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, if that person has been remanded in custody for one hundred and eighty days before the case is committed to the High Court, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.”

The Court emphasized that once an accused has clocked 180 days on remand before committal, they acquire a right to mandatory bail, subject only to reasonable conditions.

2. Sureties and Residence

The three sureties were found to be;

-Adults of sound mind.

-Financially stable and respected in their communities.

-Fully aware of their obligations as sureties.

The Applicant’s fixed place of abode was verified and uncontested by the State.

3. Community and Complainant Views

Both the LC II Committee and the complainant supported bail, with the complainant explicitly stating the Applicant was not involved in the murder. This strengthened the Applicant’s case and assured the Court of minimal risk of community hostility or interference with investigations.

4. Application of Bail Guidelines (2022)

The Court applied the Bail Guidelines, considering:

Gravity of the offence
Murder is serious, but does not oust the constitutional right to bail.
Delay in trial
The Applicant’s trial had not yet commenced, and further delay was foreseeable.
Risk of re-offending or interfering with witnesses
No evidence was presented by the prosecution.
Safety of the Applicant and community
Letters confirmed community acceptance and safety.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that the Applicant had satisfied the requirements for mandatory bail and ordered his release on the following conditions:

Deposit UGX 3,000,000 cash bail.
Each surety to execute a non-cash bond of UGX 6,000,000.
Applicant to report monthly to the Assistant Registrar of the High Court, starting September 2025.

Legal Significance

The ruling emphasises that once the 180-day remand threshold is met, bail is a constitutional entitlement and not discretionary.
Courts may give considerable weight to community leaders’ and complainants’ views in assessing safety and risk factors.
While the gravity of murder was acknowledged, the Court stressed that presumption of innocence and liberty interests cannot be undermined by prolonged detention.

Read the full case